The recent COVID-19 outbreaks in China have once again sparked debates on whether China should continue with its dynamic clearing policy or learn to "live with the virus" like many other countries including the United States.

We have seen over the past years that the failure to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus could lead to disaster. For example, according World Health Organization data, the US had 79.64 million confirmed cases and 978,118 deaths by April 12－both the highest in the world－because the administration didn't take proper prevention and control measures due to political expediency.

When executive powers clash with individual rights in the United States, the independent judiciary headed by the Supreme Court, which is known as a "nonpolitical temple", is called in to resolve the issue. However, since the pandemic outbreak, the Supreme Court has given contradictory verdicts in similar cases, which shows it is more of a "dysfunctional temple".

The US judicial system, despite its claim to the contrary, has not been able to keep politics out of its rulings. Since 2020, various political forces have launched fierce political campaigns against prevention and control measures, and filed three lawsuits in the Supreme Court.

On May 29, 2020, the justices of the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled that California Governor Gavin Newsom's enforcement of state restrictions on congregations at religious services was constitutional. Newsom had instructed all houses of worship to limit attendance to 25 percent of full capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.

But on Nov 25, 2020, the Supreme Court stayed New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's rules limiting attendance at religious services through a 5-4 decision. Cuomo had issued an executive order establishing "red zones" and "orange zones", restricting attendance at religious congregations to 10 and 25 people, respectively.

And on Jan 13, 2022, the Supreme Court blocked the Joe Biden administration from enforcing a vaccine-or-testing mandate for large employers but allowed a vaccination requirement for health workers at facilities that received federal funds.

The three conflicting rulings show the judiciary is not independent of politics. Judicial independence is necessary to prevent any one party having a stranglehold on the organs of the government. But the two political parties in the US have been nominating judges of their respective ilk to the state supreme courts, with the incumbent US president nominating justices to the Supreme Court, thereby undermining the independence of the judicial system. That explains the contradictory rulings in similar cases.

California's measures were ruled constitutional because neutral Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the US Supreme Court voted with four members of the court's liberal wing rather than the four conservative members. But things changed in the New York case because liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept 18, 2020, and was replaced by conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

In the US, the justices of the Supreme Court have to maintain the balance of power by protecting the common fundamental interests of all parties.

At the heart of the disputes in the three cases is a clash between anti-pandemic measures and civil liberties. But in Jacobson vs. Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1905, the Supreme Court upheld a state's mandatory smallpox vaccination law over the challenge of a pastor who claimed that it violated his rights to religion and liberty. By referring to that verdict, the Supreme Court could have easily ruled in favor of public good in the other two cases.

But since the pandemic has been highly politicized, the Supreme Court focused on whether people's rights to religion and liberty are being infringed upon by the government. The US' judicial system, which prioritizes individual rights over public interests, through its rulings may have cost many people their lives.

Biden's opponents insist the Supreme Court's ruling on the vaccination mandate is a blow back against the executive's tyranny and a victory for employees' rights. Yet the fact is, impartial court judgments could have saved many of the 978,118 lives that have been lost to COVID-19 in the past two years.

The author is a researcher at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily. If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.